Gay men and surrogacy - the new “be kind”?

But the children of old style 1940/50s adoption weren't usually unwanted or abandoned, they were taken from their mothers because the mother was young and unmarried. And then given to 'nice' married straight infertile couples who could provide a reference from the vicar, and they were extremely wanted too. For that matter, children of modern adoption aren't usually unwanted or abandoned either, that's never been the main driver of adoption in the UK.

There's plenty of evidence about how many children adopted the old fashioned way as tiny babies struggled emotionally, struggled with their identity and wanted to know about their birth family, and tried to find their birth family. Adoption in the UK now acknowledges how important it is for children to know their story and to be able to have contact with birth family if possible. Even if it's not possible while they're a child, all the records exist for when they're an adult.

Children of surrogacy won't be able to find a poor Ukrainian woman who was sent back to Kyiv straight after their birth. Or a woman from an Indian baby farm who likely no one even bothered to note the name of.

I think you know that there's not "research that proves surrogacy irreparably emotionally damaged children for life", but there's evidence that children adopted in closed adoptions back in the day often were damaged by that system, that's part of why we don't do it like that anymore. No one is saying it's a guarantee, but it's certainly a sizeable risk that I personally don't think is justified.

Not sure where you've formed this view. As someone who supports (regulated) surrogacy, I certainly don't regard gestational mothers as not being mothers.

The reality is that a child born through egg donation and surrogacy has two mothers - a gestational mother and a genetic mother. They may also have a third mother if, for example, they are adopted.

There is not a one size fits all way to be a mother.

The question “how should gay men have children then?” is a nebulous dog whistle because all gay men do not have the same options.

Surrogacy - is not free. UK altruistic surrogacy with free health care is still going to need the legal costs covered and that’s only if a woman is prepared to self inseminate her own egg and not claim expenses for being a surrogate. If such a “kind” woman is not available it’s legal fees, cost for donor eggs and IVF/ICSI costs.

Commercial surrogacy is upwards of £25K.

So “how should gay men have children then” creates new questions. What about gay men who can’t self fund surrogacy? Because currently it’s a small percentage of gay men who can finance the option to have biological children through surrogacy.

This does of course also apply to heterosexual single men and women, lesbian single women, lesbian couples and heterosexual couples with some differences in what the NHS will cover in regards to IVF/ICSI. Which also varies depending on where you live.

Whichever way you do it surrogacy is only an option for those with the cash. But y’know, it’s (insert manipulative baby/gift/kind trope here) definitely not treating women and babies as commodities. The 5 billion a year the US reports as coming from surrogacy suggests otherwise,

Please post the research that proves surrogacy irreparably emotionally damaged children for life.

I have not found that when reading about the subject personally.

From what I have read a lot of adoption trauma comes from feeling unwanted or abandoned, surrogacy and donor conceived children were never abandoned, they were extremely wanted and as long as their origin stories are shared with them they are well adjusted emotionally.

We're not talking about safeguarding risks.

A child may be perfectly safe and well cared for with two gay men and yet still suffer lifelong emotional damage due to being made motherless at birth.

Btw here is the thread about the father who can't cope with the boy he calls his son but was born from donor sperm - i just think people go into these situations without really understanding the potential issues https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5348870-am-i-being-unreasonable-to-think-dh-resents-our-ds ì

To clarify, I think that unrelated men pose a risk to the children who live with them and the figures support this.

I support gay adoption because all adoption aims to solve a problem, which is children who need a permanent home. All adopters are scrutinised in extreme detail and educated about early trauma, expectations v reality, identity issues etc. Gay adopters can make great parents.

Adopters, gay or straight, can abuse children but the systems are in place to try to make sure this doesn't happen. There is the approval process, which involves speaking to ex partners, then the child is placed for at least 6 months, with high levels of social worker supervision, before the parents can finally legally adopt.

Even with sperm donation there is usually counselling involved, and the mother is usually the biological mother.

But men using surrogates arent doing any of this. They just pay their money and pick up the child, not questions asked, no supervision. Sure, straight couples do the same, but the father is usually the bio father. In gay couples only one dad can be the bio father, so there is an in built issue.

We are taking about safeguarding risks and the fact that @Arran2024 is claiming that any child born to a father who needed a sperm donor is at risk by living with an unrelated male.

Originally I thought this poster was homophobic because normal people refer to a father who needed a sperm donor on a heterosexual couple just 'the child's father ' and not an unrelated male, however it seems this poster would call the father in a heterosexual couple needing a sperm donor and unrelated male too. Which is really odd to me, but not homophobic. Just plain old bizarre.

In surrogacy they don't need to reveal the name of the egg donor or surrogate until the child is 16 (18 for more info) and that just refers to UK surrogacies, while most people are going abroad. In some places the commissioning parents can even get their names on the birth certificate and in others the original certificate is sealed. So the child can't find out its mother/s.

I personally think this is awful /absurd. How on earth can this be allowed, after all we know about adopted children and their search for their roots?

These children never asked to be removed from their birth mother. Their birth mother should imo be part of their story, like the birth mother is in adoption.

No, of course you don't pretend like a birth mother doesn't matter or doesn't exist. That connection and that life story work is vital for our kids. I think this just proves the point though - there are multiple ways to be a parent. Biologically is one of them, the most common one but only one.

I'm afraid I don't agree with you about the 'honesty' of the situation. I'm not sure why that would make a difference. A child raised by two gay men knows from a very very young age that both cannot be and are not their biological parents. In my experience gay adoptive parents have been far more comfortable being open about life story work, the adoption process etc precisely because there can never be a pretence of the child being the biological child of them both (and usually, they are not coming to adoption after a long period struggling with infertility etc).

I cannot see how the situation of two gay male adopters is any different to two gay male fathers who have a child via surrogacy in terms of risk to a child - beyond the fact that the adoption process itself has some checks.

Actually we were discussing safeguarding risks. The conversation you responded to was specifically about whether 'unrelated males' pose a risk to children in the context of surrogacy.

I've posted about your point about "lifelong emotional damage" before. That claim isn't backed up by any science - indeed it is largely contradicted by the science.

The evidence that exists suggests children born through surrogacy have no worse psychological or emotional problems compared to anyone else.

How is it "contradicted by the science"?

We're not talking about safeguarding risks.

A child may be perfectly safe and well cared for with two gay men and yet still suffer lifelong emotional damage due to being made motherless at birth.

Actually we were discussing safeguarding risks. The conversation you responded to was specifically about whether 'unrelated males' pose a risk to children in the context of surrogacy.

I've posted about your point about "lifelong emotional damage" before. That claim isn't backed up by any science - indeed it is largely contradicted by the science.

We're not talking about safeguarding risks.

A child may be perfectly safe and well cared for with two gay men and yet still suffer lifelong emotional damage due to being made motherless at birth.

In the context of safeguarding risks to a child, why do you think that is different?

The difference is that when two gay men adopt, they are providing a child who already exists with the home and family that they deserve, whereas when two gay men use a surrogate, they are deliberately creating a child with the intention of removing that child from his or her mother at birth.

No, of course you don't pretend like a birth mother doesn't matter or doesn't exist. That connection and that life story work is vital for our kids. I think this just proves the point though - there are multiple ways to be a parent. Biologically is one of them, the most common one but only one.

I'm afraid I don't agree with you about the 'honesty' of the situation. I'm not sure why that would make a difference. A child raised by two gay men knows from a very very young age that both cannot be and are not their biological parents. In my experience gay adoptive parents have been far more comfortable being open about life story work, the adoption process etc precisely because there can never be a pretence of the child being the biological child of them both (and usually, they are not coming to adoption after a long period struggling with infertility etc).

I cannot see how the situation of two gay male adopters is any different to two gay male fathers who have a child via surrogacy in terms of risk to a child - beyond the fact that the adoption process itself has some checks.

I think adoption is different because of the honesty of the situation, where the children know they are adopted and the birth family is acknowledged, and because both parents (if there are 2) have the same ie no biological relationship to the child.

In surrogacy and use of donor eggs and dperm this all gets muddled up. People often aren't open about what has happened. They can't always talk about how they feel.

We are talking specifically about surrogacy here and so I am talking about bio versus non bio relationships.

I believe I am my girls' adoptive mother. I have never tried to pretend I'm anything else. I don't agree that I'm the same as a biological mother though. I didnt give birth to them and we don't share dna. My girls remember their birth mother and they know about her - i can't act like she doesn't matter.

But there aren't "routes to parenthood". There is one route by which women become mothers and their male partner or co parent becomes a father. Even if that's a sperm donor he is, in point of fact, a parent.

And then there's a route by which children whose parents cannot look after them long term gain parent figures - some of them permanent, some not, some create the legal fiction of being a parent, some not.

My children are related to me through legality in the same way I'm related to my husband. But we adopted them because they needed a home.

And finally there's a route to buy a human from a woman who generally must be capable of parenting.

I find this such a weird take from someone who has adopted.

Of course people may discover they are not as happy parenting a child conceived through donor sperm or eggs than they expected.

Just as some adopters discover that they are not cut out for adoption after all.

Just as some parents who have children the old fashioned way discover they should never have been parents.

We don't and shouldn't craft our rules around people's routes to parenthood around the possibility that some people may regret that decision. I also find it quite odd that you keep referring to non-biological parents as 'unrelated'. It's a really loaded term, because the implication is also that you and I as adopters are also 'unrelated' to our children.